Loui Dallas

The court found Davy Hernandez Balan guilty of first degree murder in the death of Maxim Karyakin.

The main issue was whether Mr. Balan, who has a history of schizophrenia and previous findings of not criminally responsible due to mental disorder (NCR-MD), was criminally responsible for the killing.

The court accepted that Mr. Balan suffered from schizophrenia but was not satisfied that the mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing his act was morally wrong.

The court found that the murder was planned and deliberate, and that Mr. Balan had the requisite intent for murder.

The accused, Norbert Budai, was charged with first-degree murder in the death of his estranged wife, Henrietta Viski, who died after being doused with gasoline and set on fire.

Budai pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder but guilty to second-degree murder, which the Crown did not accept.

The court, sitting without a jury, found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was planned and deliberate, rejecting the defence's argument that Budai's consumption of alcohol and fentanyl limited his capacity to plan and deliberate.

Budai was found guilty of first-degree murder.

Tenzin Norbu was charged with first-degree murder.

The trial proceeded without a jury, with the accused admitting to causing the victim's death by pouring lighter fluid and igniting it.

The sole issue was whether Norbu was Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder.

Expert psychiatric evidence established that Norbu suffered from schizophrenia and was experiencing active psychosis at the time of the offence, rendering him incapable of knowing his actions were morally wrong.

The court found Norbu NCR and remanded him to the Ontario Review Board for disposition.

This decision provides written reasons for oral rulings made during a jury trial for human trafficking and related charges.

The court addressed the admissibility of two key pieces of evidence: a police bulletin seeking information on other alleged victims and escort advertisements found using a commercial computer program called "Traffic Jam." The police bulletin was deemed inadmissible due to its minimal probative value and significant moral and reasoning prejudice, as it suggested the accused's involvement in wider trafficking without sufficient corroboration.

The escort advertisements themselves were found admissible as they corroborated the complainant's testimony about engaging in sex work.

However, information generated by the "Traffic Jam" program, such as an associated email address, was ruled inadmissible as hearsay and for lacking proper expert foundation, requiring redaction.

Accused persons charged following a large police investigation sought disclosure of source materials underlying wiretap authorizations to support anticipated Garofoli and Dawson applications.

The defence argued that all investigative materials, including pre‑Part VI materials referenced or relied upon by the affiant, were presumptively relevant and disclosable under Stinchcombe principles.

The Attorney General of Ontario argued that disclosure should be limited to materials relevant to the accused’s ability to make full answer and defence at trial unless the defence first demonstrated a reasonable possibility that additional materials would assist in challenging the authorization.

The court acknowledged conceptual difficulties with the Crown’s narrower approach but held that existing authorities required an accused to meet a minimal relevance threshold before obtaining additional disclosure beyond what was before the authorizing judge.

Applying principles of judicial comity and following prior decisions adopting that approach, the court dismissed the disclosure applications.